B

Statute (H&S Code) governs over regulation (CBC & CPC). Signs must designate all-gender. This is the only mandate from statute. All other regulations in CBC or CPC must be followed. DSA should amend CBC to eliminate use of triangle or circle at doorways for the uses subject to related statute and require use of unisex symbol instead. I just wish I knew which one will have the urinal :)

Since the law requires them to be signed as non-gender specific, if the tenant chooses to name both of them for the same user group, ie unisex, family, restroom, etc, then only 50% would need to be accessible.

If the tenant names each to a different user-group, ie, 1 is Family and the other Unisex, then they would each need to be accessible.

If only one of the toilet rooms is to be accessible and only one has a urinal, the toilet room with the urinal should be the accessible toilet room.

Section 11B-202.3.2 indicates that "an alteration of an existing element, space, or area of a building or facility shall not impose a requirement for accessibility greater than new construction." Our jurisdiction allows for single user, all gender restrooms to meet Plumbing Code requirements. The count is still per the Plumbing Code and enough restrooms need to be provided to meet both the requirements for men and women.

Chapter 11B requires that elements provided must comply. For new construction, if two single user restrooms are provided and meet the Plumbing Code requirements, then 11B-213.2 Exception 4 allows that 50 percent, and not less than one, must comply with technical provisions of 11B-603. Per 11B-202.3.2 an alteration should not be held to a higher standard than new construction.  

In my opinion, single user restrooms in a cluster, with the same use, must provide 50% (and not less than one) restroom complying with the technical provisions of 11B-603.

Every jurisdiction interprets this scenario differently. I think Assembly Bill only relates to signage, not the accessibility, therefore, I would observe the plumbing code first and provide accessible restrooms then provide unisex signage.

1. Observe the plumbing code first, and provide an accessible male and female single restroom, then apply the ‘All Gender’ Designation (Repair Both Restrooms)?

California needs to make some changes to their code language so that it's not so difficult for AHJ's to figure out what is required as it pertains to accessibility. For instance, requiring that a urinal be provided based on occupant load when only single-user toilet facilities are required doesn't make much sense, and certainly provides another hurdle given the recent change to Statute regarding signing of single-user toilet facilities. Providing an accessible water closet serves the same purpose...especially these days. Something else to consider...perhaps the ADAS only requires an accessible urinal when MORE than 1 is provided for a reason, California.

Regardless of the specifics at the facility in the given scenario, I would very likely be advising my client to remove the deficiencies in both toilet rooms, unless it were too onerous or technically infeasible to do so. Since the facility is existing, removing the current deficiencies would be considered as barrier removal, which would also allow that only "readily achievable" corrections be made. Of course, this solution doesn't remove them from the risk of future litigation for those issues not corrected to current code.

If they preferred to modify only one of the toilet rooms, they have a code-defensible alternative in (b), signing both as unisex and altering one to be fully accessible (and providing an ISA here). If a urinal is present in what had been the men's toilet room, I'd advise signing them both as either "Family" or "Assisted-Use" facilities, and making the required modifications in the toilet room containing the urinal.

B